|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Wider tires, All-road bikes
wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 12:47:07 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: wrote: On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 5:07:40 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: wrote: On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:27:08 PM UTC-8, James wrote: On 31/1/19 5:02 am, wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 2:59:39 PM UTC-8, James wrote: On 30/1/19 6:13 am, wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 6:07:16 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: You’d think it would be so, but really quite differing brakes don’t seem to cause confusion. I will admit that first time I use the MTB with is 180mm etc disks they are so instant, but actually you don’t lock, it’s a very easy system to use to it’s full, ie tyres at the point of locking but not quite etc. If you're applying the disk brakes and hit a bump it is WAY too easy to lock the brakes up. Disk brakes are normally associated with better brake modulation than rim brakes. That means with disk brakes you can achieve more brake effort without locking a wheel. You seem to be contradicting that. -- JS Not really. A full suspension MTB has a different center of gravity and weighs twice what a road or cross bike does. When you have 2" wide tires and a great deal of weight disks do modulate much better because you can retain traction most of the time. Whether the bike weighs 10 kg or 20 kg does not change much when the rider weighs 80 - 90kg. The biggest difference is that a full suspension MTB will retain tyre contact with the road or track surface better - however, as you start to brake the suspension forks should compress which starts to rotate you over the bars, which is bad. There are two problems with a xcross bike - it weighs very little - a 32 mm cross knobbie can easily have so much traction that the bike can rotate around it's much high center of gravity. And on hard surfaces you can lock the brakes very easily since there is less traction. Regardless of bike weight, if you're going to brake hard you must move your body backwards as much as possible, to prevent the rear wheel from lifting. Even motorcycle riders who do defensive riding courses learn this. My gravel bike comes standard with 42mm tyres. It can handle slightly wider. Not dissimilar to many MTB tyres. With road bikes they reduced the size of the disks dramatically. The reason that they even went to disks was to not wear out expensive carbon rims. So instead they wear out easily and cheaply replaceable metal disks. Using Campy skeleton brakes I can easily lock the brakes if I wish to. So what would I gain using disks other than cheaper replacement costs? Smaller disks on road bikes is because there is significantly less tyre on the road - but it should still be possible to lock the front brake and send yourself over the bars, especially if you don't move your body backwards. I am not anti-disk brakes but there are horses for courses. If you are building a superlight bike with superlight components why would you put an very un-aerodynamic and heavy disk brake systems on it? 3 months of riding my Colnago with carbon wheels show less wear that a single month on aluminum wheels. Though I have to replace the basalt brake pads all the time. It facilitates easier CF rim use, and doesn't require rim brakes to have a quick release so the brake pads can be moved out of the way of wide tyres. You know the pros use 27 - 28 mm tyres for cobbled classics? They won't get past properly adjusted rim brakes without a quick release. -- JS I don't think we agree on this: I weigh 84 kg and a 20 kg bike most assuredly climbs slower than snot on a cold day. With my cross bikes I would come up behind a FS 29er and try to pace him because I don't like blowing by people as if I were better than they. But eventually I just can't go that slow and have to pass. Though I try to do it mildly until I'm out of sight. I will say that really rough, steep climbs that you have to carry a cross bike up these long wheelbase MTB's can carry such a low gear that they can climb almost anything. I have 28's on my Time VX Elite with an Ultegra group on it and the brake releases work fine. Let's remember that today's disk brake bikes have 10 mm one piece axles and so there is no such thing as a quick release. Plus you have to thread the wheel between the forks plus carefully insert the disk through the brake pads without knocking them off. That's why most of the road racing teams are not using disks Unless they are E-MTB or possibly downhill a full suspension 29er will not be 20kg, mine which is at best mid pack, is 12/13kg I’d agree that cross/gravel bikes tend to climb shallower smoother climbs such as fire roads faster, sometimes by quite a bit equally once it gets steeper and rougher the MTB will shine. What race mechanics may not find difficult shouldn’t really be a pressing problem unless your a race mechanic, if your riding with a support car, where wheel change speed matters then possibly something to consider. Roger Meriman Concerning the wheels I should add that you can't sit on the ground and play mechanic very easily and you end up standing and somehow trying to balance the bike without a wheel of finding some spot to lean the bike while you play mechanic on the wheel. Putting the wheel back in under these circumstances is clumsy at best. Why not? Personally generally do just flip the bike over though it’s a fairly cumbersome object it’s not heavy really so easy enough to just flip it over should I need to. MTB will not fit but the Gravel bike with wheels off will fit in the boot of the car, though admittedly I sometimes just slot the forks on to the wheel, while sitting in the boot, both are easy enough. Roger Merriman I don't know what sort of equipment you have but it would be a cold day in hell when I balanced my bike upside down on my $80 saddle and my $250 Record levers. I live in the uk, and ride off road mostly, while things might get mud, which they will anyway, soft ground is unlikely to harm the bike, clearly if one was truely brutal I guess? And equally being off road bikes they will get war wounds from use. The bikes shouldn’t be inside down is one of the many old wives tails. Roger Meriman |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Wider tires, All-road bikes
On 1/2/19 7:48 am, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:27:08 PM UTC-8, James wrote: On 31/1/19 5:02 am, wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 2:59:39 PM UTC-8, James wrote: On 30/1/19 6:13 am, wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 6:07:16 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: You’d think it would be so, but really quite differing brakes don’t seem to cause confusion. I will admit that first time I use the MTB with is 180mm etc disks they are so instant, but actually you don’t lock, it’s a very easy system to use to it’s full, ie tyres at the point of locking but not quite etc. If you're applying the disk brakes and hit a bump it is WAY too easy to lock the brakes up. Disk brakes are normally associated with better brake modulation than rim brakes. That means with disk brakes you can achieve more brake effort without locking a wheel. You seem to be contradicting that. -- JS Not really. A full suspension MTB has a different center of gravity and weighs twice what a road or cross bike does. When you have 2" wide tires and a great deal of weight disks do modulate much better because you can retain traction most of the time. Whether the bike weighs 10 kg or 20 kg does not change much when the rider weighs 80 - 90kg. The biggest difference is that a full suspension MTB will retain tyre contact with the road or track surface better - however, as you start to brake the suspension forks should compress which starts to rotate you over the bars, which is bad. There are two problems with a xcross bike - it weighs very little - a 32 mm cross knobbie can easily have so much traction that the bike can rotate around it's much high center of gravity. And on hard surfaces you can lock the brakes very easily since there is less traction. Regardless of bike weight, if you're going to brake hard you must move your body backwards as much as possible, to prevent the rear wheel from lifting. Even motorcycle riders who do defensive riding courses learn this. My gravel bike comes standard with 42mm tyres. It can handle slightly wider. Not dissimilar to many MTB tyres. With road bikes they reduced the size of the disks dramatically. The reason that they even went to disks was to not wear out expensive carbon rims. So instead they wear out easily and cheaply replaceable metal disks. Using Campy skeleton brakes I can easily lock the brakes if I wish to. So what would I gain using disks other than cheaper replacement costs? Smaller disks on road bikes is because there is significantly less tyre on the road - but it should still be possible to lock the front brake and send yourself over the bars, especially if you don't move your body backwards. I am not anti-disk brakes but there are horses for courses. If you are building a superlight bike with superlight components why would you put an very un-aerodynamic and heavy disk brake systems on it? 3 months of riding my Colnago with carbon wheels show less wear that a single month on aluminum wheels. Though I have to replace the basalt brake pads all the time. It facilitates easier CF rim use, and doesn't require rim brakes to have a quick release so the brake pads can be moved out of the way of wide tyres. You know the pros use 27 - 28 mm tyres for cobbled classics? They won't get past properly adjusted rim brakes without a quick release. -- JS I don't think we agree on this: I weigh 84 kg and a 20 kg bike most assuredly climbs slower than snot on a cold day. With my cross bikes I would come up behind a FS 29er and try to pace him because I don't like blowing by people as if I were better than they. But eventually I just can't go that slow and have to pass. Though I try to do it mildly until I'm out of sight. I will say that really rough, steep climbs that you have to carry a cross bike up these long wheelbase MTB's can carry such a low gear that they can climb almost anything. I have 28's on my Time VX Elite with an Ultegra group on it and the brake releases work fine. Let's remember that today's disk brake bikes have 10 mm one piece axles and so there is no such thing as a quick release. Plus you have to thread the wheel between the forks plus carefully insert the disk through the brake pads without knocking them off. That's why most of the road racing teams are not using disks Earlier the conversation was about braking performance. Now you are talking about climbing. Just how often do you have to brake hard while riding up a steep hill? -- JS |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Wider tires, All-road bikes
On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 5:07:55 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote: On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 12:47:07 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: wrote: On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 5:07:40 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: wrote: On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:27:08 PM UTC-8, James wrote: On 31/1/19 5:02 am, wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 2:59:39 PM UTC-8, James wrote: On 30/1/19 6:13 am, wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 6:07:16 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: You’d think it would be so, but really quite differing brakes don’t seem to cause confusion. I will admit that first time I use the MTB with is 180mm etc disks they are so instant, but actually you don’t lock, it’s a very easy system to use to it’s full, ie tyres at the point of locking but not quite etc. If you're applying the disk brakes and hit a bump it is WAY too easy to lock the brakes up. Disk brakes are normally associated with better brake modulation than rim brakes. That means with disk brakes you can achieve more brake effort without locking a wheel. You seem to be contradicting that. -- JS Not really. A full suspension MTB has a different center of gravity and weighs twice what a road or cross bike does. When you have 2" wide tires and a great deal of weight disks do modulate much better because you can retain traction most of the time. Whether the bike weighs 10 kg or 20 kg does not change much when the rider weighs 80 - 90kg. The biggest difference is that a full suspension MTB will retain tyre contact with the road or track surface better - however, as you start to brake the suspension forks should compress which starts to rotate you over the bars, which is bad. There are two problems with a xcross bike - it weighs very little - a 32 mm cross knobbie can easily have so much traction that the bike can rotate around it's much high center of gravity. And on hard surfaces you can lock the brakes very easily since there is less traction. Regardless of bike weight, if you're going to brake hard you must move your body backwards as much as possible, to prevent the rear wheel from lifting. Even motorcycle riders who do defensive riding courses learn this. My gravel bike comes standard with 42mm tyres. It can handle slightly wider. Not dissimilar to many MTB tyres. With road bikes they reduced the size of the disks dramatically. The reason that they even went to disks was to not wear out expensive carbon rims. So instead they wear out easily and cheaply replaceable metal disks. Using Campy skeleton brakes I can easily lock the brakes if I wish to. So what would I gain using disks other than cheaper replacement costs? Smaller disks on road bikes is because there is significantly less tyre on the road - but it should still be possible to lock the front brake and send yourself over the bars, especially if you don't move your body backwards. I am not anti-disk brakes but there are horses for courses. If you are building a superlight bike with superlight components why would you put an very un-aerodynamic and heavy disk brake systems on it? 3 months of riding my Colnago with carbon wheels show less wear that a single month on aluminum wheels. Though I have to replace the basalt brake pads all the time. It facilitates easier CF rim use, and doesn't require rim brakes to have a quick release so the brake pads can be moved out of the way of wide tyres. You know the pros use 27 - 28 mm tyres for cobbled classics? They won't get past properly adjusted rim brakes without a quick release. -- JS I don't think we agree on this: I weigh 84 kg and a 20 kg bike most assuredly climbs slower than snot on a cold day. With my cross bikes I would come up behind a FS 29er and try to pace him because I don't like blowing by people as if I were better than they. But eventually I just can't go that slow and have to pass. Though I try to do it mildly until I'm out of sight. I will say that really rough, steep climbs that you have to carry a cross bike up these long wheelbase MTB's can carry such a low gear that they can climb almost anything. I have 28's on my Time VX Elite with an Ultegra group on it and the brake releases work fine. Let's remember that today's disk brake bikes have 10 mm one piece axles and so there is no such thing as a quick release.. Plus you have to thread the wheel between the forks plus carefully insert the disk through the brake pads without knocking them off. That's why most of the road racing teams are not using disks Unless they are E-MTB or possibly downhill a full suspension 29er will not be 20kg, mine which is at best mid pack, is 12/13kg I’d agree that cross/gravel bikes tend to climb shallower smoother climbs such as fire roads faster, sometimes by quite a bit equally once it gets steeper and rougher the MTB will shine. What race mechanics may not find difficult shouldn’t really be a pressing problem unless your a race mechanic, if your riding with a support car, where wheel change speed matters then possibly something to consider.. Roger Meriman I had a Gary Fisher HiFi 29er which was just before he sold out to Trek who made the Trek HiFi. That bike was too heavy to weigh as I recall since I hang my scale from an overhead nail in a shelf. But my estimate with the seat pack and water bottle would easily be 20 kg. At the time this was the very top of the line. Looking that bike up they are (just) sub 12kg, a water bottle generally 1/2 a kg full, unless your bike packing a seat pack isn’t going to be, 7kg. My old commute MTB with panniers and a bar bag is 20kg as it has locks and what not, but the FS MTB is closer to the gravel bike, you can get very light MTB not quite as light as roadie but remarkably close. Roger Merriman I ALWAYS carry a seatpack and have never been sorry that I do. That would make the bike around 15 kg, There are a lot of full suspension bikes on the trails around here and I have passed plenty of them and NEVER been passed by one except downhill while I was riding my cross bikes. Sure you can get a FS bike pretty near my cross bike weight for a mere $10,000. I’d be surprised if your saddle pack, was over 1kg, even with inner tubes these things are all quite light, catching MTB on a CX/gravel bike on fire roads and what not is fairly easy, and weight doesn’t seem to be the big thing, my first CX/gravel bike was really very cheap and heavy, was dangerously close to my MTB in weight, but could still leave MTBs for dead up such climbs, the newer and a fair bit lighter/better Gravel bike there really isn’t much in it if the gradient is mild, such as most fire roads and what not. By the time folks add water bottles and what not the difference between road and MTB narrows. Roger Merriman It is slightly less than one KG and a water bottle half that. So the Ridley XBow weighs 23.6 lbs without the bag or bottle. That makes it at LEAST 26.6 lbs or 12 kg. What full suspension bikes weight anywhere near that figure? And the Ridley is a couple of lbs heavier than the Redline. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Wider tires, All-road bikes
On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 5:14:00 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 1/2/19 7:48 am, wrote: On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:27:08 PM UTC-8, James wrote: On 31/1/19 5:02 am, wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 2:59:39 PM UTC-8, James wrote: On 30/1/19 6:13 am, wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 6:07:16 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: You’d think it would be so, but really quite differing brakes don’t seem to cause confusion. I will admit that first time I use the MTB with is 180mm etc disks they are so instant, but actually you don’t lock, it’s a very easy system to use to it’s full, ie tyres at the point of locking but not quite etc. If you're applying the disk brakes and hit a bump it is WAY too easy to lock the brakes up. Disk brakes are normally associated with better brake modulation than rim brakes. That means with disk brakes you can achieve more brake effort without locking a wheel. You seem to be contradicting that. -- JS Not really. A full suspension MTB has a different center of gravity and weighs twice what a road or cross bike does. When you have 2" wide tires and a great deal of weight disks do modulate much better because you can retain traction most of the time. Whether the bike weighs 10 kg or 20 kg does not change much when the rider weighs 80 - 90kg. The biggest difference is that a full suspension MTB will retain tyre contact with the road or track surface better - however, as you start to brake the suspension forks should compress which starts to rotate you over the bars, which is bad. There are two problems with a xcross bike - it weighs very little - a 32 mm cross knobbie can easily have so much traction that the bike can rotate around it's much high center of gravity. And on hard surfaces you can lock the brakes very easily since there is less traction. Regardless of bike weight, if you're going to brake hard you must move your body backwards as much as possible, to prevent the rear wheel from lifting. Even motorcycle riders who do defensive riding courses learn this. My gravel bike comes standard with 42mm tyres. It can handle slightly wider. Not dissimilar to many MTB tyres. With road bikes they reduced the size of the disks dramatically. The reason that they even went to disks was to not wear out expensive carbon rims. So instead they wear out easily and cheaply replaceable metal disks. Using Campy skeleton brakes I can easily lock the brakes if I wish to. So what would I gain using disks other than cheaper replacement costs? Smaller disks on road bikes is because there is significantly less tyre on the road - but it should still be possible to lock the front brake and send yourself over the bars, especially if you don't move your body backwards. I am not anti-disk brakes but there are horses for courses. If you are building a superlight bike with superlight components why would you put an very un-aerodynamic and heavy disk brake systems on it? 3 months of riding my Colnago with carbon wheels show less wear that a single month on aluminum wheels. Though I have to replace the basalt brake pads all the time. It facilitates easier CF rim use, and doesn't require rim brakes to have a quick release so the brake pads can be moved out of the way of wide tyres. You know the pros use 27 - 28 mm tyres for cobbled classics? They won't get past properly adjusted rim brakes without a quick release. -- JS I don't think we agree on this: I weigh 84 kg and a 20 kg bike most assuredly climbs slower than snot on a cold day. With my cross bikes I would come up behind a FS 29er and try to pace him because I don't like blowing by people as if I were better than they. But eventually I just can't go that slow and have to pass. Though I try to do it mildly until I'm out of sight. I will say that really rough, steep climbs that you have to carry a cross bike up these long wheelbase MTB's can carry such a low gear that they can climb almost anything. I have 28's on my Time VX Elite with an Ultegra group on it and the brake releases work fine. Let's remember that today's disk brake bikes have 10 mm one piece axles and so there is no such thing as a quick release. Plus you have to thread the wheel between the forks plus carefully insert the disk through the brake pads without knocking them off. That's why most of the road racing teams are not using disks Earlier the conversation was about braking performance. Now you are talking about climbing. Just how often do you have to brake hard while riding up a steep hill? -- JS Maybe I got lost in the conversation - I was talking about MTB's being a good place to use disks because they can use them for their very heavy downhill loads whereas my cross bike can pass them easily on hard climbs save the very hardest in which the long wheelbase and low gears of an MTB win out. |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Wider tires, All-road bikes
wrote:
On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 5:07:55 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: wrote: On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 12:47:07 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: wrote: On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 5:07:40 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: wrote: On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:27:08 PM UTC-8, James wrote: On 31/1/19 5:02 am, wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 2:59:39 PM UTC-8, James wrote: On 30/1/19 6:13 am, wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 6:07:16 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: You’d think it would be so, but really quite differing brakes don’t seem to cause confusion. I will admit that first time I use the MTB with is 180mm etc disks they are so instant, but actually you don’t lock, it’s a very easy system to use to it’s full, ie tyres at the point of locking but not quite etc. If you're applying the disk brakes and hit a bump it is WAY too easy to lock the brakes up. Disk brakes are normally associated with better brake modulation than rim brakes. That means with disk brakes you can achieve more brake effort without locking a wheel. You seem to be contradicting that. -- JS Not really. A full suspension MTB has a different center of gravity and weighs twice what a road or cross bike does. When you have 2" wide tires and a great deal of weight disks do modulate much better because you can retain traction most of the time. Whether the bike weighs 10 kg or 20 kg does not change much when the rider weighs 80 - 90kg. The biggest difference is that a full suspension MTB will retain tyre contact with the road or track surface better - however, as you start to brake the suspension forks should compress which starts to rotate you over the bars, which is bad. There are two problems with a xcross bike - it weighs very little - a 32 mm cross knobbie can easily have so much traction that the bike can rotate around it's much high center of gravity. And on hard surfaces you can lock the brakes very easily since there is less traction. Regardless of bike weight, if you're going to brake hard you must move your body backwards as much as possible, to prevent the rear wheel from lifting. Even motorcycle riders who do defensive riding courses learn this. My gravel bike comes standard with 42mm tyres. It can handle slightly wider. Not dissimilar to many MTB tyres. With road bikes they reduced the size of the disks dramatically. The reason that they even went to disks was to not wear out expensive carbon rims. So instead they wear out easily and cheaply replaceable metal disks. Using Campy skeleton brakes I can easily lock the brakes if I wish to. So what would I gain using disks other than cheaper replacement costs? Smaller disks on road bikes is because there is significantly less tyre on the road - but it should still be possible to lock the front brake and send yourself over the bars, especially if you don't move your body backwards. I am not anti-disk brakes but there are horses for courses. If you are building a superlight bike with superlight components why would you put an very un-aerodynamic and heavy disk brake systems on it? 3 months of riding my Colnago with carbon wheels show less wear that a single month on aluminum wheels. Though I have to replace the basalt brake pads all the time. It facilitates easier CF rim use, and doesn't require rim brakes to have a quick release so the brake pads can be moved out of the way of wide tyres. You know the pros use 27 - 28 mm tyres for cobbled classics? They won't get past properly adjusted rim brakes without a quick release. -- JS I don't think we agree on this: I weigh 84 kg and a 20 kg bike most assuredly climbs slower than snot on a cold day. With my cross bikes I would come up behind a FS 29er and try to pace him because I don't like blowing by people as if I were better than they. But eventually I just can't go that slow and have to pass. Though I try to do it mildly until I'm out of sight. I will say that really rough, steep climbs that you have to carry a cross bike up these long wheelbase MTB's can carry such a low gear that they can climb almost anything. I have 28's on my Time VX Elite with an Ultegra group on it and the brake releases work fine. Let's remember that today's disk brake bikes have 10 mm one piece axles and so there is no such thing as a quick release. Plus you have to thread the wheel between the forks plus carefully insert the disk through the brake pads without knocking them off. That's why most of the road racing teams are not using disks Unless they are E-MTB or possibly downhill a full suspension 29er will not be 20kg, mine which is at best mid pack, is 12/13kg I’d agree that cross/gravel bikes tend to climb shallower smoother climbs such as fire roads faster, sometimes by quite a bit equally once it gets steeper and rougher the MTB will shine. What race mechanics may not find difficult shouldn’t really be a pressing problem unless your a race mechanic, if your riding with a support car, where wheel change speed matters then possibly something to consider. Roger Meriman I had a Gary Fisher HiFi 29er which was just before he sold out to Trek who made the Trek HiFi. That bike was too heavy to weigh as I recall since I hang my scale from an overhead nail in a shelf. But my estimate with the seat pack and water bottle would easily be 20 kg. At the time this was the very top of the line. Looking that bike up they are (just) sub 12kg, a water bottle generally 1/2 a kg full, unless your bike packing a seat pack isn’t going to be, 7kg. My old commute MTB with panniers and a bar bag is 20kg as it has locks and what not, but the FS MTB is closer to the gravel bike, you can get very light MTB not quite as light as roadie but remarkably close. Roger Merriman I ALWAYS carry a seatpack and have never been sorry that I do. That would make the bike around 15 kg, There are a lot of full suspension bikes on the trails around here and I have passed plenty of them and NEVER been passed by one except downhill while I was riding my cross bikes. Sure you can get a FS bike pretty near my cross bike weight for a mere $10,000. I’d be surprised if your saddle pack, was over 1kg, even with inner tubes these things are all quite light, catching MTB on a CX/gravel bike on fire roads and what not is fairly easy, and weight doesn’t seem to be the big thing, my first CX/gravel bike was really very cheap and heavy, was dangerously close to my MTB in weight, but could still leave MTBs for dead up such climbs, the newer and a fair bit lighter/better Gravel bike there really isn’t much in it if the gradient is mild, such as most fire roads and what not. By the time folks add water bottles and what not the difference between road and MTB narrows. Roger Merriman It is slightly less than one KG and a water bottle half that. So the Ridley XBow weighs 23.6 lbs without the bag or bottle. That makes it at LEAST 26.6 lbs or 12 kg. What full suspension bikes weight anywhere near that figure? And the Ridley is a couple of lbs heavier than the Redline. High end XC are within that ball park, Trek Top Fuel is 22lb claimed, Ridley Sablo being a XC MTB should be broadly in the same ball park and any other higher end XC MTB would equally. Roger Merriman |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Wider tires, All-road bikes
On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 4:44:51 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote: On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 5:07:55 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: wrote: On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 12:47:07 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: wrote: On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 5:07:40 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: wrote: On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:27:08 PM UTC-8, James wrote: On 31/1/19 5:02 am, wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 2:59:39 PM UTC-8, James wrote: On 30/1/19 6:13 am, wrote: On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 6:07:16 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote: You’d think it would be so, but really quite differing brakes don’t seem to cause confusion. I will admit that first time I use the MTB with is 180mm etc disks they are so instant, but actually you don’t lock, it’s a very easy system to use to it’s full, ie tyres at the point of locking but not quite etc. If you're applying the disk brakes and hit a bump it is WAY too easy to lock the brakes up. Disk brakes are normally associated with better brake modulation than rim brakes. That means with disk brakes you can achieve more brake effort without locking a wheel. You seem to be contradicting that. -- JS Not really. A full suspension MTB has a different center of gravity and weighs twice what a road or cross bike does. When you have 2" wide tires and a great deal of weight disks do modulate much better because you can retain traction most of the time. Whether the bike weighs 10 kg or 20 kg does not change much when the rider weighs 80 - 90kg. The biggest difference is that a full suspension MTB will retain tyre contact with the road or track surface better - however, as you start to brake the suspension forks should compress which starts to rotate you over the bars, which is bad. There are two problems with a xcross bike - it weighs very little - a 32 mm cross knobbie can easily have so much traction that the bike can rotate around it's much high center of gravity. And on hard surfaces you can lock the brakes very easily since there is less traction. Regardless of bike weight, if you're going to brake hard you must move your body backwards as much as possible, to prevent the rear wheel from lifting. Even motorcycle riders who do defensive riding courses learn this. My gravel bike comes standard with 42mm tyres. It can handle slightly wider. Not dissimilar to many MTB tyres. With road bikes they reduced the size of the disks dramatically.. The reason that they even went to disks was to not wear out expensive carbon rims. So instead they wear out easily and cheaply replaceable metal disks. Using Campy skeleton brakes I can easily lock the brakes if I wish to. So what would I gain using disks other than cheaper replacement costs? Smaller disks on road bikes is because there is significantly less tyre on the road - but it should still be possible to lock the front brake and send yourself over the bars, especially if you don't move your body backwards. I am not anti-disk brakes but there are horses for courses. If you are building a superlight bike with superlight components why would you put an very un-aerodynamic and heavy disk brake systems on it? 3 months of riding my Colnago with carbon wheels show less wear that a single month on aluminum wheels. Though I have to replace the basalt brake pads all the time. It facilitates easier CF rim use, and doesn't require rim brakes to have a quick release so the brake pads can be moved out of the way of wide tyres. You know the pros use 27 - 28 mm tyres for cobbled classics? They won't get past properly adjusted rim brakes without a quick release. -- JS I don't think we agree on this: I weigh 84 kg and a 20 kg bike most assuredly climbs slower than snot on a cold day. With my cross bikes I would come up behind a FS 29er and try to pace him because I don't like blowing by people as if I were better than they. But eventually I just can't go that slow and have to pass. Though I try to do it mildly until I'm out of sight. I will say that really rough, steep climbs that you have to carry a cross bike up these long wheelbase MTB's can carry such a low gear that they can climb almost anything. I have 28's on my Time VX Elite with an Ultegra group on it and the brake releases work fine. Let's remember that today's disk brake bikes have 10 mm one piece axles and so there is no such thing as a quick release. Plus you have to thread the wheel between the forks plus carefully insert the disk through the brake pads without knocking them off. That's why most of the road racing teams are not using disks Unless they are E-MTB or possibly downhill a full suspension 29er will not be 20kg, mine which is at best mid pack, is 12/13kg I’d agree that cross/gravel bikes tend to climb shallower smoother climbs such as fire roads faster, sometimes by quite a bit equally once it gets steeper and rougher the MTB will shine. What race mechanics may not find difficult shouldn’t really be a pressing problem unless your a race mechanic, if your riding with a support car, where wheel change speed matters then possibly something to consider. Roger Meriman I had a Gary Fisher HiFi 29er which was just before he sold out to Trek who made the Trek HiFi. That bike was too heavy to weigh as I recall since I hang my scale from an overhead nail in a shelf. But my estimate with the seat pack and water bottle would easily be 20 kg. At the time this was the very top of the line. Looking that bike up they are (just) sub 12kg, a water bottle generally 1/2 a kg full, unless your bike packing a seat pack isn’t going to be, 7kg. My old commute MTB with panniers and a bar bag is 20kg as it has locks and what not, but the FS MTB is closer to the gravel bike, you can get very light MTB not quite as light as roadie but remarkably close. Roger Merriman I ALWAYS carry a seatpack and have never been sorry that I do. That would make the bike around 15 kg, There are a lot of full suspension bikes on the trails around here and I have passed plenty of them and NEVER been passed by one except downhill while I was riding my cross bikes. Sure you can get a FS bike pretty near my cross bike weight for a mere $10,000. I’d be surprised if your saddle pack, was over 1kg, even with inner tubes these things are all quite light, catching MTB on a CX/gravel bike on fire roads and what not is fairly easy, and weight doesn’t seem to be the big thing, my first CX/gravel bike was really very cheap and heavy, was dangerously close to my MTB in weight, but could still leave MTBs for dead up such climbs, the newer and a fair bit lighter/better Gravel bike there really isn’t much in it if the gradient is mild, such as most fire roads and what not. By the time folks add water bottles and what not the difference between road and MTB narrows. Roger Merriman It is slightly less than one KG and a water bottle half that. So the Ridley XBow weighs 23.6 lbs without the bag or bottle. That makes it at LEAST 26.6 lbs or 12 kg. What full suspension bikes weight anywhere near that figure? And the Ridley is a couple of lbs heavier than the Redline.. High end XC are within that ball park, Trek Top Fuel is 22lb claimed, Ridley Sablo being a XC MTB should be broadly in the same ball park and any other higher end XC MTB would equally. Roger Merriman Being that the Trek has a lifetime warranty on the frame I would think that would be the way to go. But that 22 lbs must be the smallest size that uses 27.5 wheels because all of the tests weigh in at 25 lbs. And then water bottles and your seatpack and wowser, you have a heavy bike. Now maybe those things being so damn slow on the climbs has to do with the full suspension bob and they have suspension lockouts now. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
tires, the wider the better | [email protected] | Techniques | 17 | October 9th 07 08:21 AM |
tires, the wider the better: but slower? | datakoll | Techniques | 23 | October 9th 07 05:05 AM |
Putting wider tires on my Bike. | modmans2ndcoming | Techniques | 2 | April 17th 06 11:28 PM |
Are wider tires easier to control? | e39m5 | Unicycling | 2 | September 17th 05 09:00 PM |
Do I need wider tires? | Dukester | General | 10 | June 27th 05 02:03 AM |